I did find one issue. Its not a new issue, but the CDI integration changes
made the problem more profound when using CXF + Weld in an Arquillian test.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7175
So -0 since I won't be able to upgrade yet.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:47 PM Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
+1 for 3.1.9 (nb)
source ok, meecrowave and tomee runs fine and my other tests as well.
txs and LieGrue,
strub
> Am 09.12.2016 um 21:47 schrieb Daniel Kulp :
>
> Since there are several folks waiting for this release and it would be good
> to get it out before the holidays, I’d like to call a v
GitHub user johnament opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cxf/pull/214
[CXF-7175] Use ExtensionManagerBus as the underlying bean type for proxies
- Ensure that CdiBusBean reports the correct class when using its class and
types
- Ensure that ExtensionManagedBean sup
You -0’d a release because the pull request that you submitted at 12/11/16
15:30 GMT didn’t make it into a release whose vote was kicked off nearly 42
hours before at 12/9/16 21:47 GMT?
Seriously?
Jeff
> On Dec 11, 2016, at 7:16 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> I did find one issue. Its not a
Le 11 déc. 2016 17:03, "Jeff Genender" a écrit :
You -0’d a release because the pull request that you submitted at 12/11/16
15:30 GMT didn’t make it into a release whose vote was kicked off nearly 42
hours before at 12/9/16 21:47 GMT?
In particukar since it is a bug in weld not cxf as Mark point
No, I -0'd a release because something's busted. I raised the PR to fix
that busted thing.
John
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 11:03 AM Jeff Genender wrote:
> You -0’d a release because the pull request that you submitted at 12/11/16
> 15:30 GMT didn’t make it into a release whose vote was kicked off
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 11:06 AM Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Le 11 déc. 2016 17:03, "Jeff Genender" a écrit :
>
> You -0’d a release because the pull request that you submitted at 12/11/16
> 15:30 GMT didn’t make it into a release whose vote was kicked off nearly 42
> hours before at 12/9/16 21:
2016-12-11 17:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament :
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 11:06 AM Romain Manni-Bucau >
> wrote:
>
> > Le 11 déc. 2016 17:03, "Jeff Genender" a écrit :
> >
> > You -0’d a release because the pull request that you submitted at
> 12/11/16
> > 15:30 GMT didn’t make it into a release whos
All,
So Romain had a good point, let's not pollute the vote thread with this
issue. I raised a problem with the current release, its related to an
issue that's existed in the CDI integration for some time, but was made
worse by a recent change in CXF for the 3.1.9 release.
In old versions of CXF
Le 11 déc. 2016 21:30, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
All,
So Romain had a good point, let's not pollute the vote thread with this
issue. I raised a problem with the current release, its related to an
issue that's existed in the CDI integration for some time, but was made
worse by a recent change in
Romain,
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 4:08 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Le 11 déc. 2016 21:30, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
>
> All,
>
> So Romain had a good point, let's not pollute the vote thread with this
> issue. I raised a problem with the current release, its related to an
> issue that's exist
Le 11 déc. 2016 22:24, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
Romain,
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 4:08 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Le 11 déc. 2016 21:30, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
>
> All,
>
> So Romain had a good point, let's not pollute the vote thread with this
> issue. I raised a problem with the curr
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Le 11 déc. 2016 22:24, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
>
> Romain,
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 4:08 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
> wrote:
>
> > Le 11 déc. 2016 21:30, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
> >
> > All,
> >
> > So Romain had a good point, let's
Le 12 déc. 2016 01:08, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Le 11 déc. 2016 22:24, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
>
> Romain,
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 4:08 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
> wrote:
>
> > Le 11 déc. 2016 21:30, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
> >
It's a bug in Weld but I would still change it as your handling is better and
also beneficial for OWB.
Weld team claims that BeanClass is actually only for determining the
visibility. Still they also base other decisions on that type (as does OWB).
I wanted to change/clarify this in the spec but
15 matches
Mail list logo
